|
None of these questions are meant to trip anyone up. I'm definitely on the side of the Teachers, but as I've read and followed the reporting of these sorts of Union/Government Union/Corporate conflicts, I am always amazed at the total lack of information as to why teacher pay and retirement is never explained in a way that makes it easy for the non-union individual to know how unfairly teachers are being treated.....
1.) For example I know no one who can give me a sensible explanation as to why Union teachers have pensions instead of SS. The first time I learned this was so was from a teacher just a few years ago.
She was a former CA teacher, now retired, and all the things I know of teacher's pay reflect her situation. I realize perhaps she is unique, but so far I've seen evidence that says it's more the norm.
She told me for example that a Teacher's pension replaces SS for most teachers.
To find out over the years that this point is almost unknown outside of unions to me is astounding, because people seem all too aware of the individuals who work for government who are able to get a pension AND SS when they retire thanks to fox news.
So naturally when people hear pensions, they think this must be an extra ON TOP of SS the Union teachers get - and to a person who only gets SS that would be galling and make enemies of Teacher's rights simply out of ignorance not actual reasons.
So what is the supposed advantage of a pension over SS for retirement. From what I've been told teachers cannot get both, because the money they would have put into SS goes into their pension fund.
2.) If that is correct, Is it possible that they keep ending up on the losing side, because most people do NOT know that teachers do NOT get SS. Now I know to Teachers this is SO OBVIOUS, but honestly outside of education and the rapidly dwindling union base in general the opportunities to learn from talking to a Union member are getting scarce. In places like Texas they don't exist.
3.) If I am mostly right - that the whole pension system created for whatever reason is IN PLACE of Social Security, how come nobody bothers to explain to the non-union individual that attempts to cut Teacher's pensions are tantamount to trying to cut Social Security for people who worked all their lives to get it
Nothing would cut through the right wing lies better than such a simple statement, but I've never heard anyone say anything even close.
Pensions and SS may be different sorts of financial structures, but the end users for both I think see it as their retirement.
Unions make their jobs much more difficult by assuming the vast majority know the details of the union fight.
4.)As sympathetic as I may be to the union side, I always catch myself wondering why is it from the beginning of every conflict anti-union forces so successfully portray union workers as lazy and selfish and thus force the unions (all kinds) start their fight from behind the goal line so to speak.
I'd think that Union leaders would have realized by now to not just sit and wait to be dumped on, yet they seem oblivious to the need to lay "positive groundwork" when times are peaceful for Unions so that when they see that knife in their enemies hands they are prepared.
Yes I know the opponents of Unions have shitloads of cash, but that does not mean making an effort to positively portray union members when things are calm is not worth it.
My feeling is all to often the ONLY thing the NON-Union worker knows about unions was told to him by this or that anti-union entity.
Personally I KNOW I do not see anything positive about Unions in my local media nor hear anyone talking positively about them. Worst of all I never hear or see messages from the unions themselves ensuring that through all the noise a positive message about unions is always there.
By the way I've only lived here for a few years, and spent 17yrs. on the West Coast. So when I speak of perceptions, Texas is not the only or largest part of perspective.
5.) How come Union leadership does not seem able to learn from the past. Unions never seem to anticipate and prepare for the regular attacks on the part of anti-working folk forces whoever they may be. Each one seems to be a carbon copy of the last attack. This time it was several governors doing it simultaneously. Surely in the run up to 2010 someone in the leadership should have known the toxic nature of some of these guys.
6.) Why is it that unions always allow the media to portray efforts by Unions to ensure fair treatment for members as efforts to prevent management from getting rid of bad employees who truly need to be fired.
I'm thinking mostly of the outrageous behavior on the part of law enforcement officials in various cities (check youtube videos) where the taped, solid evidence is clearly the policeman or fireman was acting in a despicable manner abusing his/her power to abuse and humiliate a suspect.
In the middle of the reporting pops up a Union official declaring his member is innocent (despite video proof, eyewitnesses Etc.) While I know what they're doing, doing it that way makes too many people think unions are only there to protect the worst of the worst at the expense of public safety and well-being.
I ask question #6 assuming that most people have seen their share of police videos who have recorded some of these incidences and are posted on youtube under various tags, like police abuse Etc.,
I have a lot more questions, but I hope this should be enough to help me figure out why I see this.
Finally I realize that considering the general make up of the DU a far greater percentage would be fully aware of these things. When I use generalities about what people do or don't know, I am NOT thinking about the typical DU person. I am generalizing for the American Public of which we all know DU members are a very small part and who often far more aware of what's going on than the group as a whole.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(76 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
